> Skype's encryption algorithm is not, itself, broken
Skype's encryption has not been cracked, but it is broken in the sense that it preserves exploitable structure in the ciphertext. The ciphertext should be essentially random, shouldn't it?
Skype's encryption has not been cracked, but it is broken in the sense that it preserves exploitable structure in the ciphertext. The ciphertext should be essentially random, shouldn't it?
Encryption will keep your wife from reading your letters, but if you send a hundred letters a month to the new girl at work she might still get suspicious. Encryption does not promise to prevent that.
It's like a developer arguing that a project was completed exactly to spec, when the spec isn't what the client wanted, and the dev didn't make any real effort to understand what the client wanted.
You could always trade latency for security by batching more of the stream and encrypting larger blocks.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. http://cryptolib.com/ciphers/skype/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/08/skypes-innermost-security-l...
I never actually took the time to use it and I couldn't find any record of any details being revealed after 29c3, but it looks solid enough and one guy on a blog claimed to have written a python library using this C code and was able to get some PoC to work.